Political Advertising from opposing candidates

Carly Fiorina



Barbara Boxer



Of these two particular politcal campaign advertisements, I think Barbara Boxer has a cleaner and more convincing advertisement. One of the major flaws of Fiorina's ad that I noticed right away was that the video stated she dropped out of law school after the first year and decided to go into another field. Then it talked about Fiorina's perks. If dropping out of law doesn't make a valid argument against your campaign, especially if you're running for governor, then I don't know what does. On the other hand, Boxer uses short sentences in addition to her own voice as narration and only says what she advocates. This makes a very easy-to-understand message.

The issue of E-Commerce Taxation

E-commerce taxation is an issue about whether the government should put a tax on purchases made online by Americans. This is problem is very hard for the U.S. government to solve because online purchases include a vast variety of different website stores and corporations such as Ebay and Amazon. How would, if even possible, the government enforce the tax on every purchase, and what would happen if someone out of the country is also trying to buy from these multinational websites. On the other hand, we have the issue of Americans buying products from people overseas. Will the government be enforcing tax on those purchases as well? The problem is that the internet has helped expand these corporations that are hubs for these products and have become globally influenced.

An example of how the government has censored some kind of media

One example of the U.S. government censorship is the case with the online database called Wikileaks. Wikileaks is an organization, some termed the Whistleblowers, that exposes the flaws and secrets kept by the American government from the public. In response, the U.S. government has suspended access to Wikileaks and even blocked online payment accounts from supporting the organization. On a very fundamental level, the government should not be able to do this because Wikileaks is just utilizing their Freedom of Speech. On the other hand, when one takes a look at the list of supports, we find that the majority of donations come from organizations that have grudges against the U.S. government, the President, and/or the politics of the ruling party. Here we see reasonable examples of why the censorship is necessary to hopefully protect the peace of the citizens.

An example of online print media

"Why the Tea Party won't determine the 2012 GOP nominee" by Aaron Blake

Blake does a good job in this particular article of The Washington Post. Clearly this is a biased opinion, but what Blake does so well is that he immediately starts his article by trying to convince the public using clearly defined facts as well as making a point that his perspective is not completely geared toward an extreme view. He uses facts from the Republic party viewpoint as well to justify his argument. With the use of quotes as well, Blake keeps the public informed by not putting too much analysis and having the public decide for themselves if the information is sufficient enough for his claim.

An example of political commentary on television

President Obama's Birth Certificate Released

This report was well done because it allowed the audience to stay focused by switching commentaries back and forth. Although it had a slightly more center left view, in my opinion, the report given was clear, precise, and easy to follow. This helps keep the public informed of the issue that Donald Trump is just spouting arrogant, self-righteous content and really should move on.

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

In this particular case, Daniel Ellsberg, stole classified information, copied them, and released them to The New York Times to be published. They were called "The Pentagon Papers." The Court ordered a per curiam and the case was brought to the Supreme Court where 6 justices concurred with the right of the 1st and 14th Amendment and 3 dissented.

This case was being argued under the pretense that the First Amendment of free speech and the Fourteenth Amendment of due process were in place rightfully. These justices believed that the information should be accessed to the public and even the government withholding a publication corporation during the period of this trial is unlawful. This is why Justice Douglas believed that there was no right that could withhold the press from publishing these papers, and by doing so to the Times is illegal. I side with the dissenters. I believe that the fundamental wrong doing is that Ellsberg stole these papers in the beginning from national security of the Executive branch. There has to be a reason why these papers would be kept in secret, or else the government would have already let the information loose. Reasons could include the protection of the safety, prosperity, and well-being of the nation as a whole. These papers could also incite unnecessary violence among the people.

Here is some more information about the case, and also the aftermath that concluded this case.

While I personally believe that this case should have been more delicately handled by considering possible public reaction. The aftermath was not hurtful towards the government as it could have been. By letting the newspaper corporation to publish these papers, the government is letting publishers know that their freedom of expressing speech is protected.

Gitlow v. New York (1925)

Benjamin Gitlow was charged because he was inciting ways to overthrow the American government with two of his published books based off of Marx and Engels' Communist Manifesto. When appealed to the Supreme Court, it decided 7 to 2 for the conviction of Gitlow. The court justices believe that although citizens do have the right of the First Amendment, the right of speech, in this particular case, it was for an abusive manner.

The court made a correct decision in this case because it insured the safety of the people of the United States. While free speech is an important right to all of us, if the activity in doing so can potentially cause harm or incite violence toward the society or the government, then I believe it is necessary for each and every state to hold responsibility to judge upon these potential criminals as soon as possible.

Here I have a review of the whole court, which includes those who agreed and dissented in this particular case.

While is is proper to have the right to express particular opinions, even if it is against the "America" ideal, one must limit the emotional content that is being expressed to the public. The government has the right to put down and potential unlawful usage of the freedom of speech in order to preserve public image, morality, and safety.

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas (1954)

This particular case was another corner stone to the forming of the United States we know today. This case represents a set of cases that denied black students from going to the same school facilities as white students. The former reason was that the educational system can be "separate, but equal." With the help of Chief Justice Earl Warren, he persuaded the court that having facilities that separate two different races because of their skin color inherently means that they are not equal. With the backing of the Fourteenth Amendment, this court case got rid of segregated schools.

This decision had to be done in order to move a step towards a less racial nation. When there is enough evidence in our nation that proves that the education facilities of both black and white school are not equal, then revision must be made. When these schools separate people by race, they are also morally segregated due to the idea that they are inferior and by the evidence of having smaller schoolrooms, less supplies, and bad learning conditions.



Chief Justice Earl Warren took the right and a daring step to change history. He went through the words of the constitution one by one, especially that of the Fourteenth Amendment and it still went back to the "separate, but equal" clause. This phrase has indefinitely changed the rights of people of all ethnic origins.

Gideon v. Wainwright (1963)

In this case, Clarence Earl Gideon was arrested in Florida because he had the intent of burglary. He was put into trial at court but was too poor to afford his own attorney because at that time in Florida, only those who have capital cases were appointed attorneys. Being brought to the Supreme court, Justice Black used court cases Betts v. Brady and Powell v. Alabama to declare that those who are pressed with criminal activity, and are too poor to afford free counsel, must be provided with an attorney or it is illegal.

This case basically provided everybody, even criminals caught red-handed, a "fair trial" in courts around the nation. Whether there is obvious evidence or not to dictate whether the offender is guilty or not is up to the judge, but for each trial, the offender must have an attorney provided to them if they are too poor to afford one. I believe this was right of Justice Black to decide this because it gave more support to the face that courts in America are fair for everyone, regardless of reason.



The free right to counsel provided all citizens, good or bad, the help of a trained professional of the law. Without any help at all, an amateur could never win a case if he or she has no training in law. By giving everyone the fair help of an attorney, the United States can uphold the fact that it provides everyone the same chance to hold their own in every case.

Miranda v. Arizona (1966)

Ernesto Miranda was charged of rape and kidnapping. He was taken into the police station and interrogated without being told that he had a right to get an attorney or a right to remain silent. He was forced to write a confession through pressure and found guilty by state court. An appeal to the Supreme Court in 1966 was approved at a 5 to 4 majority against his conviction, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren. Warren stated that those under interrogation must have these two basic rights given to them.

These regulations and statements by Chief Justice Warren is higher respected in today's society. If any police officer does not say that an offender has the right to remain silent or the right to get an attorney, it is constitutionally illegal. This leads to the fact that some police stations may be questionable of the ways they conduct themselves. Not all statements given to the public by possible convicts should be believed to be the truth. I believe everyone should learn from this case because nobody really knows what goes on inside an interrogation room everywhere and the suspect may be treated to physical if not high degrees of psychological pain.



By completing these two tasks in order for a correct judgement on the suspect's response, many innocent people will not be forced to life in prison. While this system may give those who are guilty a chance to escape their crime, I believe it's more important to value the lives of the innocent first, then deal with those who can be convicted if there is significant evidence.

Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978)

In this case, Applicant Alan Bakke was declined admission to the University of California at Davis. The problem was that he had lower science grade point than the average white applicants but significantly higher aptitude tests. This was for his application to the Medical School of the University, which had a separate admissions process that separated the regular "white" students and those who are minorities or have disadvantages. When brought to the state court, the court ruled in favor of Bakke and ordered his admittance. The University then appealed to the Supreme Court and they ruled a 5 to 4 majority for Bakke stating the violation of the 14th Amendment as their backing.

As I was an applicant to the medical field for UC Davis as well, I believe it was ridiculous for the University to have placed this restriction of applicants based on race and color. Although the standards have already risen today to a point where only the best of batch are able to get in, there is still no real distinction between whether they are accepting students based solely on their academic performance. While it's true that the program does not exist, the rubric for each individual student may be different in the Acceptors' minds.

Here is a description of the case and differing opinions about the case.

Eliminating the Affirmative Action process was definitely a step in the right direction. If we, as a society, were to put up quotas in order to limit certain amount of highly qualified applicants to claim that we want to diversify the campus, then that means talented and highly motivated students will not be able to expand their horizons and further their development intellectually. It is morally positive that a University might want to help the acceptance of the disabled, but this case proved that it's more about the ethnic races of our nation.

Miller v. California (1973)

In 1973, Miller was charged of publicly advertising his own explicit sexual and adult books. Charged by the State of California, Miller's case was brought to the Supreme Court and with the help of Chief Justice Warren Burger, decided a 5 to 4 vote in California's favor.

I believe that the decision made by the Supreme Court was a step in the right direction. We, as older citizens in our community, should be conscious of the mature material that can be exposed too early to the youth. In order to fix small loopholes in our system that might make a case, such as this one, occur again, Chief Justice Warren Burger helped create three new Guidelines

1. would the average person, "applying contemporary community standard," find that a work, when viewed as a whole appealed to "prurient interest"?

2. does the work depict or describe certain specifically defined sexual conduct in a patently offensive way?

3. does the work lack "serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"?

>Click Here< This shows another brief summary of the case in an organized manner

These new guidelines are absolutely necessary in today's America. Passing illicit material to those who have no intention or do not want to read or see the material is completely unorthodox. Not considering the families with children, it could be highly offensive to individuals' religion or personal morals.

Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)

Plessy was a man who was 1/8 black and decided to sit in the white section of a train. When asked to hand his seat over to a white passenger, he refused and got arrested. Ferguson, the state judge of Louisiana, charged him to be imprison. This decision was agreed by the Supreme Court.

In this court case, Justice Harlan kept his dissent strictly to what he thought Louisiana meant. He believed that the purpose of this law was for the whites and the blacks to "keep to themselves while traveling in railroad passenger coaches." I believe the purpose of "separate but equal" was just an excuse for dissenters to pass federal opinion by putting in equal when in fact being separate "coaches" cannot merely mean equal when the quality of the each separate coach so blatantly unequal. Harlan even claims that the purpose was to give equal accommodation, but with so much evidence all over the nation that black schools and transits are in poorer condition, the claim is unreliable.

Although Justice John Harlan wanted to clarify that the case was not simply a matter of separating two races apart on a train, the majority opinion thought otherwise. This case helped bring tension to this issue of "separate but equal" leading up to the Brown v Board of Education in Topeka Kansas case.

United States v. Nixon (1974)

In this court case, President Nixon was charged of illegally taking and deleting tapes in the Watergate Scandal. Although he claimed executive power, Nixon was overturned by the court and forced to resign.

I believe that the Supreme court had carefully and correctly decided when they believe that President Nixon's defending statement is insufficient. Although it may have been different if Nixon had declared his executive powers against the court in order to protect the "military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets..." However, only claiming that the executive privilege will protect his own individual rights seems only to be a selfish reason. Furthermore, by doing so, Nixon is arousing suspicion that he is the culprit. If he really was innocent, he would have no problem surrendering the tapes.



This is a video of Nixon during his resignation video for the public. You can hear him avoiding certain praises in order to make the situation lighter than it actually is.

This court primary proved to the people of the nation that the President does not have the ultimate say and overall power. It symbolizes the checks and balances system in the United States of America.

Roe v. Wade (1973)

 In 1973, the Supreme Court decided in a 7 to 2 vote for Roe's case. She was an unmarried pregnant woman who wanted to get an abortion in the state of Texas. Texas had prohibited abortion unless the mother's life is in danger.

Obviously, the choice should be available to mothers if their lives are in danger. However, the state argues against this choice because certain states are generally geared toward one end of the political party spectrum. They want to maintain their ideals in the courts as well as hold down state values that have long prospered in that particular state.





Roe v. Wade has to be one of the cornerstones of this nation. Not only did this case simply gave women their right to have an abortion or not, it was a stepping stone for other liberal proposals.

Toils of American Healthcare

 Part I: 

            Healthcare in America has been known to be the epitome of many low income families in the United States. Most fail to make enough money to meet the annual insurance fees and are not able to receive healthcare. Currently, there are roughly 50.7 million citizens who are not able to afford medical insurance ( Wolf, Richard ). This is almost a two percent increase of the American population since last year. A causation of this most unprecedented fact is the recent recession in the U.S. economy. Never in history has there been such a deteriorating factor amidst our country. America is also the only developed country in the world that fails to provide a universal government sponsored healthcare system. Many can say that the quality of being a Laissez Faire nation being deeply embedded in our roots has created this problematic health insurance monster, yet it is definitely one of the United States’ most symbolic characteristics. Having a healthcare for Americans all over the country will provide and without a doubt, will generate better communities. Many have criticized the system and health insurance companies for its outrageously static prices that apply to all citizens regardless of monthly income. By creating a new healthcare system and replacing the current one, we, as a nation, are able to fix parallel issues such as poverty. Many have already figured out that they simple cannot afford the current price for insurance, so they do not even bother getting it. While some may interject to declare that this idea is preposterous and that a proper healthcare plan should be placed at the top of priorities list, not having any insurance may not be such a bad idea for low-income families. There are many pharmaceutical products being researched today and countless reliable drugs are being produced to help insure annual well-being. Not to mention over-the-counter medicine is proving to be more and more effective. With all of this in mind, the only problem remains with the mindset and responsibility of the individual. If one takes daily precautions and have a safe mentality, there should be no reason for injury. However, unlike a perfect world, accidents will and do occur and sometimes even spontaneously. By entering an emergency room without health insurance is where most families meet their downfall. Bills from the emergency room are sky rocketing and cause  major downward spikes for many family budgets. As stated by George Anders, “Each year Americans pay about 100 million visits to hospital emergency rooms, visits that generate about $14 billion in bills” ( Anders, George p.133 ). Ultimately, this is why healthcare may not seem like a benefit for low-income families, but when the risk factors and the cost factors are weighed, pay for insurance seems reasonable. Subsequently, even some of the better, more costly health plans do not cover every problem one encounters in life. In response to this problem, around 900 thousand citizens in the U.S., in 2010, resorted to something called Medical tourism ( Jain, Manoj ). Surgeries relating to dentistry and even eye care have become so expensive in the United States that citizens decide to travel to other countries, such as India, to get the procedure done correctly and for a much more affordable price. For those who are not able to do this, the only choice for them is to actively support political leaders in our nation who propose adjustments that will help them toward this goal of cheap if not free healthcare. Present Obama is exactly the symbol of hope for this particular issue. During his campaigning period and his first few years of presidency, he has hoped to achieve the seemingly impossible with Obamacare.

Part II:

            The most devastating part of this situation is how it arose. In the mid 1900s, Medicare and Medicaid were introduced into the U.S. system. Originally it was geared toward the elderly, but Medicaid advanced even further. States were required to pay for five basic services which included inpatient and outpatient care, laboratory, x-ray, and nursing home services ( Kronenfeld, Jennie Jacobs ). This began the trend for the development of more and more corporations. Now, as prices on coverage are increased by the insurance companies, it directly affects and escalates to the threshold of many customers who are willing to pay for insurance. As the pool of insured patients decrease in size, the costs will continue to rise in hopes to retain profit. In conjunction with the declining economy, the change becomes more drastic. As a result more and more patients are forced to go without insurance, enter the emergency, and leave with big-numbered bills. President Obama has therefore created Obamacare coming into his presidency in order to hopefully optimize a system that lowers financial insurance of United States citizens classified as low income households. The Patient Protection  and Affordable Care Act passed on March 23, 2010 after long hours of devotion by Obama to try and convince senate members to vote in the bill’s favor. This bill focuses mainly with the Medicare program of America and targets at “provide better coverage for those with pre-existing conditions, improve prescription drug coverage in Medicare and extend the life of the Medicare Trust fund by at least 12 years” ( Patient Protection andAffordable Care Act ). In addition, this act is mainly directed at those who supported President Obama during his campaign for presidency in 2008. A majority of the aspects incorporated into this law provide advantageous solutions to small business owners and white collar workers of America. And so, a greater amount of people are qualified for Medicaid while states cannot restrict their opportunity without losing federal funding ( Medicare and Medicaid ). Nevertheless, there were and still are dissenters of this March law such as Judge Roger Vinson of Florida. He believed that it was unconstitutional to force Americans to buy health insurance and “that the so-called individual mandate was ‘inextricably bound’ to other parts of the legislation” ( Health CareReform Follow-up ). The driving force behind the rationality of this act was that the increase in taxes was going to be the main fuel to reimburse the United States government in terms of funding. However, with President Obama’s 2011 tax cuts in order to please the resentful Republicans, national debt has started to rise once again. In a report released by the House of Energy and Commerce Committee, “the cost has increased from an already staggering $938 billion price tag to $1.445 trillion” ( Kessler, Glenn ). In unison with the already built up dissent among Congress and now the increasingly higher-than-estimated cost of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, President Obama is going to have to formulate a balance between the people and the political leaders of this country if he wants his healthcare plan to succeed.

Due to my interest, I volunteered at Kaiser Permanente Hospital in Oakland for community service. During my four years of volunteer work at Kaiser, I have been fortunate enough to meet people very different from the folks in the Contra Costa county and definitely those who harbor a much more difficult life due to their current economic position. By tending the Surgery Information Desk in the main lobby, I had met with people young and old, who, regardless of how far they lived from the hospital and how distant the relationship to the patient, came and asked for directional help. Simultaneously, this volunteer service I happily performed gave me a sense of pleasure from helping those in need and taught me communication skills in a professional setting. This opportunity invested in me and other volunteers is all thanks to the consideration of Kaiser, one of many health insurance companies available. However at the same time, I’ve also had the chance to experience displeased and infuriated patients while working in the emergency room. During my month of training in the emergency room of filing papers and such, I’ve witnessed tantrums of countless patients who have come to complain about their bill. I cannot vouch for outstanding quality of service for each and every patient, but I know that Kaiser has a reputation of outputting satisfactory care. Nevertheless, let it be major or minor injures, the cost of this “good service” comes at a hefty price for those without healthcare. This situation is a direct correlation to how corporations function in America in order to gain the most profit. Without sacrificing the quality of care as one of the top hospitals in the nation, it perseveres to gain most of its income from the emergency and patient stay departments. Fully taking advantage of those who do not have health insurance with Kaiser, it charges high prices, even though sometimes it’s rightfully justified for the amount of labor required. This serves as a warning and justification for patients to consider and sometimes convince families to apply for an insurance plan. As a result, corporations such as Kaiser have successfully lured more and more prey looking for survival into their trap.

Part III:

            During the past year and even today, healthcare costs have ceased to stop rising and are estimated to continue their ascend upwards, slowly but steadily, as President Obama tries to counterbalance this phenomenon. The primary problem is that President Obama has been very restricted in seizing opportunities to reach out to the people about his cause. Many do not understand these increases in health insurance and are, more often then not, corrupted by the opinionated lectures in news reports and one-sided columnists. Obama must try to slowly release information to support why it is important to stick to our insurance plan and not drop out short. If successfully done, President Obama can worry less about the nation’s general poverty and uncontrollable corporations and focus mainly on reducing the national debt and refining his health reform. Similarly, the government and medical corporations needs to focus less on emergency procedures, but rather more on methods that can be passed on to the general populous so that they can check and keep a constant check on their own health daily before a serious problem occurs. Americans even ranked the idea of prevention to be one of the top desires out of the medical reforms in this nation ( Thompson, Tommy G. ). When one can appropriately monitor their condition and possess the knowledge to continuously counteract the illness, the value in this procedure becomes invaluable. Our nation, similarly to a soda machine, just keeps on taking more and more money and returns unhealthy results and products which then fuels this unconscious cycle, mainly corporations, of addiction. On the more localized level, doctors or even employees can formulate ways of saving money in their own hospitals. One example is that they can “challenge overly stingy treatment guidelines and push for wiser standards” ( Anders, George p.245 ). At the same time, many potential advocates can even suggest more obvious solutions such as going against medical extravagance to save funds and get rid of inefficient working methods.

            As a freshman in high school, I had no doubt in my mind that I wanted to gain experience working in a hospital because I want to pursue the medical field of work as a life goal. Attending this volunteer program at the Oakland Kaiser has been one of the greatest choices of my life. Every hour I have volunteered, I have meet new and interesting people as well as learn how to accommodate with different types of visitors. Gaining social communication skills along the way has been invaluable. I also received the chance to mature in a corporate medical facility and to build my patience with difficult-to-handle people. The most rewarding part of this job included training new volunteers at the information desks located around the Kaiser block. Not only did I receive such a great opportunity, but I am able to share the toils I had to go through and forewarn these students so that they may achieve success quicker. The most invaluable part of this volunteering experience is the time I got to train and hold my own in the emergency room. Here, nobody has anytime for slackers and unless you learn to be quick minded and quick handed, there is little to no hope in such a professional environment. I had witnessed first-hand how proficiently large corporations such as Kaiser Permanente takes precautions for the safety of their customers by constantly improving the quality of their programs. Not only does Kaiser prioritize the health and well-being of it patients through its medical resources, it also spends the time to improve the environment of the hospital to hopefully make the visitors navigate easier. This medical corporation, Kaiser, has particularly given me a clear vision of how money flows toward the rich. Not only are they able to achieve such a high level of service due to reliable workers, they are able to expand their parameters to reach an even further and higher horizon those without such funds.

Possible suppressor of Diabetes?

Roni Rabin writes in The New York Times about the new development of a drug called Pioglitazone, or Actos, a medical drug advertised to help with preventing diabetes or controlling diabetes. Rabin goes on to note that this drug is developed from the same company as the older diabetes drug Avandia. Avandia is completely banded from Europe and is only rarely used in America due to its various side effects

Pioglitazone is believed to be safer than rosiglitazone, but it has been linked to an increased risk of congestive heart failure, and the Food and Drug Administration is investigating a possible link to bladder cancer.

However, after a recent statistical study with this drug, it seems that those who take Actos do receive more benefits than those who did not take any diabetes preventative drug at all. The only observed negatives were that the patients gained weight and had a lot more water retention in their bladders than those who didn't take Actos. Certainly there has never been a drug that has been approved federally to prevent any sort of diabetes at all. However, it will take some time due to the fact that there are always negative side effects. Patients will just have to wait until a drug with minimal damage is developed.

Lung Cancer death declines for American Women

Roni Caryn Rabin describes statistics about the more recent five-year analysis on mortality rates of women who smoke. Since 2003 the death rate of lung cancer induced women patients have decreased by as much as 3-5%. Statistically, a decline only seen after a decline in the same problem men have. In The New York Times, Rabi quotes:

For several decades, death rates had been increasing among women with lung cancer. The drop in death rates reflects declines in smoking that occurred years ago, analysts said.

This only goes to show that more and more Americans are realizing the bad effects of smoking. While it may seem sexist to say that women only follow by example because the majority of the smokers are male, the end result is what really matters. If women are able to take the initiative, from male influence, to stop smoking and decrease their risk of dying from lung cancer, then by all means do it. Lung cancer only results from foolishness and addiction and those who can take a step into a healthier life with longevity, there should be no obstacle one cannot overcome.

Painkiller Prescriptions value Safety

Painkillers are a useful way of diverting pain after a surgical operation and even physical pain. Pharmacists are now giving out contracts to opioids, painkillers, in order to keep track and monitor patients so they do not misuse these opioids. Michelle Andrews goes into detail in The Washington Post and says:

In 2007, 11,499 people in the United States died from opioid overdoses, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That was more than the number of overdose deaths for heroin and cocaine combined.

Certainly is it wise for doctors to require regular check ups on patients who need chronic painkillers for daily relief. It is even more vital to have prescribe the bare minimum to patients who only need opioids for a short period of time. By creating a system that helps patients help themselves, they are able to stop from getting addicted and hopefully avoid a chanced meeting with death. Unlike other relief drugs, opioids are derived from the ancient opium poison. While it does provide physical and mental relief, if taken in wrong or excess dosage, death is inevitable.

Independent Pharmacies provide Better Service

Nati Harnik describes in The Washington Post that in a sample of responses, many customers actually prefer to get their over-the-counter and prescription drugs at an Independent drug store in comparison to the large drug chains such as CVS. Claimed to have quicker, more friendly service, these Independents appeal a constantly rising population.

People who filled their prescriptions at independent stores also praised the pharmacists’ accessibility and personal service, and encountered fewer delays and medication mix-ups than those who shopped elsewhere.

Nevertheless, these findings are said to have been collected from a survey that wasn't completely random. This doesn't exclude that fact that all of the respondents could only be from satisfied customers as well. Biased is a very big condition in the responses for this survey. On the other hand, without the many corporate restrictions of bigger chain drug stores, independent pharmacists are able to provide individual attention and care. Even so, if all you cared about was the price of the drug that is prescribed, it is most likely safe to assume that bigger corporations such as CVS will have the cheaper price in comparison to the small business owner of a drug store looking for independent profit.

Americans seeking cheaper care out of the nation

In a recent article in The Washington Post, writer Manoj Jain describes how many United States citizens are continuously traveling to other countries such as India for cheaper, but still quality surgeries and other medical care. These country jumpers are termed as Medical tourists.

When my father had a toothache, he saw a dentist in Boston who recommended a root canal and dental crown costing about $2,000. He decided to wait until he was in India, his native land, for holidays and had the procedure done there for $200.

 Although some may argue that doing so will ultimately hurt the American medical system in place by making these professions have less business and once again force them to raise the price for the required surgery. Another interesting note made in this article is the idea that these countries that know they get many medical tourists can accommodate them much more easily by having international guides in those countries. This way,  they can advertise their cheaper care for potential customers overseas. Just as facilities in America has adapted to many other languages in order to provide better service, many foreigners seek the help in the United States because of its better range of technology and knowledge as well.